Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Look, unless its an actual group of independent musicians, can we just assume WIN is a group of agents, managers, and lawyers suckling for cash? Its not as though the musicians couldnt form their own group, start up a listserv, and send a strongly worded email to google insisting they be paid fairly in order to stream content.

It's so true. Nothing saps creative energy like the business side and it's the music business because someone has to pay for those crazy hats, skin tight pants, stages, lights, promo, food, booze, drugs and whatever else you can think of that helps grease the machine.

A group of independents would be kind of an oxymoron wouldn't it? The technology exists to enable each musician to become truly independent of the music industry but it's tough to become a strong signal through so much noise. Youtube has essent

You are right, of course. But nimbius also has a point - the summary is a bit misleading, as it takes the "poor artists beaten down by big corporation" angle, when in fact it is a pretty large trade group that is getting beaten down. And really this is just a continuation of a longer-term trend where the oversupply of music is resulting in it becoming practically free. In the past, the labels (even the indy labels) combined with limited infrastructure (only so much room at the record shop, only so many radi

If Google did threaten to screw musicians on YouTube that didn't sign up for their streaming service then Google ARE the bad guys here. I like Google and I think they do a lot of good, but let's not pretend that using your dominance of one market to force musicians to accept your terms in another isn't a jackass move.

I don't really have a dog in this fight - if Google is evil than so be it. I'm not a big fan of the recording industry, either.

My broader point was that artists have been and will be getting less money in the future as the means of distribution becomes trivial and cheap or free, and that whoever wins this particular fight won't change very much. Not that "artists" were ever making very much - most of the money has always gone to the support industry, with the exception of a few high-profile long-term succes

Seem to me the musician leeching off something some else pays for are the bad guys here. I like musicians and I think they do a lot of good, but lets not pretend that using a service some else provides for free for casual videos in order to sell your music isn't a jackass move.Words are fun.

Im not sure what you're proposing, but I guess I dont see the problem here. Google has terms for youtube / their streaming service; if musicians/viewers dont like it they can let google know and leave the site.

But this is, at the end of the day, a matter between Google and the musicians, so it seems like it should be the musicians who (collectively, if they want to) negotiate with Google.

As a composer and a musician, I totally, 100% agree with you. This really isn't a big deal. It's a non-exclusive agreement. If you don't like the terms, sign with someone else, or start your own thing. No one's being backed into any corners here. Plus, there's also the aspect of considering that even though it is alleged that YouTube is going to pay less than other services, the amount of traffic on YouTube compared to other sites could quite possibly generate significantly more "sales" to an artist, so really it becomes a question of price vs volume (sales volume, not sonic volume).

most of these contracts are very similar. that's why they have the musician organizations like ASCAP that you join who negotiate royalties on your behalf and send you a check. and that's why you hire an agent.

Not quite true. I'd shop at a dozen different mom-and-pop stores if it gave me the opportunity to purchase what I wanted at a price acceptable to me. As a bonus I get to know some new people. Amazon isn't preferable because they same me time and gas money but because they are universally less expensive than mom-and-pop and almost always have what I was looking for. Mom and pop need an Amazon-like entity more than I do, because they can't match what Amazon can do at scale.

Either you negotiate with your agent, manager whatever, or you negotiate with google directly.
If you don't then you can go sit on the street playing for coins.

So, if I want to make music for a living, I could spend time on the phone, writing emails, etc. hashing out contracts for every random dude who wants to use my music. (Some speaker wants to use my song as an intro for his presentations... great... gotta negotiate. Some people want to play my song at a public ceremony or wedding or bar mitzvah... time to negotiate... etc.)

OR -- I could just join some sort of association that sets standard fees for use of the music, and/or have a manager who keeps track o

Or, set an acceptable price to you. $1 per play (or whatever). No negotiation. Look at all of the time you just saved.

... and look at all the streaming services and radio stations that are NOT playing your music because they prefer standard licenses and bulk deals. Look at all the people that are playing your music and NOT paying you because you have no way to enforce your license, or even know that it is being violated. Look at the local nightclub cancelling your gig because their customers prefer bands they have actually heard of. Look at you talking to the manager at McDonalds, asking if you can work an extra shift t

The problem is that ASCAP and friends have gotten the law twisted in their favor. You don't really get to pick your representative. They will collect royalties for your music whether you join or not. They will apportion it as they see fit without regard to whos music was actually being played. Even if you conscientiously object, they will still claim to represent you and assrape your friend who plays your music in his shop with your blessing. Insult to injury, you won't even get the money they collect from

This is just patently false. I've been an ASCAP member for over 10 years. I have multiple licensing agreements with multiple firms. ASCAP only gets involved where appropriate, and does not in any way control what I choose to charge or not charge someone to use my music. I've allowed my stuff to be used for free many, many times for independent, small budget productions or student films, and ASCAP in no way prevents this.

They're talking about ASCAP non-members. ASCAP will still collect royalties for streaming a song, even if it's not in their library. The only way to get your money is to either join ASCAP or sue the individual infringers.

I have never heard of ASCAP collecting royalties for non-members, with no written agreement in place documenting the commercial availability of their work, nor have I heard of ASCAP denying anyone any shares collected on their behalf.

Yeah, um, NO. In this example, ASCAP is not taking royalties on songs that are not with registered members. They are also not denying funds to those who are. The fees that this particular artist is referring to are quite common, and it is one of the ways that various venues chooses to pay for the fees that they owe for allowing songs to be performed publicly at their venue. A different way to do it would be to simply generate an invoice for each artist who performs a song where a royalty is due and

Look, unless its an actual group of independent musicians, can we just assume WIN is a group of agents, managers, and lawyers suckling for cash?

So does that mean you haven't even bothered to determine who members of this organization are before posting? You're just arbitrarily ranting, in case something *might* be true?

As it stands, WIN is basically an organization of organizations. It basically advocates for "independent" labels and such. You could read about their supposed priorities in their manifesto [winformusic.org].

1. We, the independents, will work to grow the value of music and the music business. We want equal market access and parity of terms with Universal, Warner and Sony, and will work with them in areas where we have a common goal. We will work to ensure that all companies in our sector are best equipped to maximize the value of their rights.

2. We support creators' freedom to decide how their music may be used commercially, and we will encourage individual artists and labels to speak out directly against unauthorized uses of music as well as commercial uses of music that stifle that freedom. We support creators' right to earn a living from their work, which should be respected as a basic human right. We expect any use of music by commercial third party operators to be subject to fairly negotiated licensing terms, in a market where any use of music is an end in itself, not so-called promotion driving a subsequent sale.

3. We support independent music labels that treat their artists as partners and who work with them on reasonable commercial terms, noting that labels are investors who deserve a fair return alongside their artists.

4. We promote transparency in the digital music market; artists and companies are entitled to clarity on commercial terms.

........

Etc.

Is this empty rhetoric? I don't claim to know for sure. But these are the top points (out of their 10 "manifesto" statements), much o

OK, but youtube-dl is much older than two months. So, it's legal free video downloads (assuming these "active countermeasures" are not classified as "devices for copyright control" in the DMCA/trafficking sense of the word), supported by community efforts. The fact is it's broken every few months, and also fixed again, for a couple of years running now. They have not implemented any "strong" copyright protection measures that would prevent its fixing. Where is the netflix-dl?

And if Google would just put up Download links on every video that didn't require some obscure special software that just us nerds know to use, many artists from their target market would pack up their videos and leave. You have to imagine that a lot of artists want to be able to broadcast without enabling free copying for everyone, even when that sounds just as obviously technically impossible as say... uniquely identifying a person across repeated visits without actually storing any token of their identi

So now, in a world where someone can be arrested and driven to suicide by law enforcement just for following all of the links and downloading all of the things to a place where they can be easily re-indexed and consumed en-masse by public, you're saying it's actually not enough to just provide a free service that abides by copyright law and pays copyright owners and does not use DRM, and that you actually have to put up the download links where uneducated people can find them, and actively enable/promote th

you can say google is evil,but spotify doesn't let anyone upload videos for free for the whole world to see

Given the advertising revenue Google makes off YouTube I don't think they, or you, will get very far trying to pretend it's some kind of charitable service that somehow justifies them being dicks (if they in fact are) about something else.

Hosting costs and promotion remain. YouTube provides hosting at no charge (provided you're not trying to make fair use of a work whose copyright is owned by a publisher with a special Content ID deal), and YouTube recommends only YouTube videos as "related videos" for YouTube videos.

Um, HTML5 video doesn't have anything to do with P2P. If you want to create an HTML5 video streaming site you still need the heavyweight backend and bandwidth that Youtube has, the only difference is you wouldn't be using Flash.

WIN, which represents independent labels worldwide, claims that YouTube is approaching labels directly with a "template contract" and threatening that if they do not sign it, all their music videos will be blocked on YouTube.

So wait.... Youtube is approaching labels that represent musicians and not the musicians themselves So that means that if a musician still wants to put his own video up on Youtube, and that video is not the property of any label, then there should be no problem, right? Or am I misu

Possibly. What Google is saying is "if you don't sign this contract for our upcoming streaming service, at a rate which is entirely unfair to you, we will block your videos on YouTube".

From TFS:

Google is threatening to de-list musicians' videos from YouTube if they do not agree to the terms for its unannounced streaming music service. The template contracts issued to musicians are described as 'undervalued' relative to other streaming services, and are not open for negot

other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.

So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok;)

This will certainly backfire not very long from now: basic reasons why youtube is big is because a) was early, and b) is a high-bandwidth streaming service that you can dump (and find) more-or-less what you want. Take this away, or make it complicated, and soon the tech-savvies or the home/small business people will pull out; and the middle class iPad living room seniors surfers will --sooner or later-- follow.

Google spends time, effort and resource to create the infrastructure for a music streaming service that requires daily, constant effort to maintain, and so gets to define the terms.

Musicians spend a few hours/days/weeks/months/years creating songs, then look for ways to milk that brief period of productivity for a lifetime (and for their descendants or estates as well, because copyright).

What musicians don't do: create their own music streaming service built on their own terms and funded by them, asking for the fees they sincerly believe they deserve. And then test it in the free marketplace and discover what the true value of their work actually is. And adjust their model until they have come up with a viable and sustainable business. That's what musicians don't do.

Yet when someone else does all the work for them but actually wants to get something for THEIR effort that actually reflects the cost and effort involved, it's evil and exploitative.

Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.

I can't blame those who are actually doing the hard work for refusing to cater to the exaggerated sense of entitlement that pervades the culture of 'creatives'. For every artist that is sitting on their duff crying out about the unfairness of these services, there are probably a hundred hard working people that get up every single day to collect their tiny paycheck in order to make that service viable so the artists can reap the rich benefits they think they are due.

Strong arming? Threat? De-listing? Bullshit. Use the music service someone else created for you, find another that suits you better, or create your own. That should be how things work in a free market.

Yes, it should be, but surely you have noticed that YouTube doesn't compete like a stand-alone video distribution service in a free market. YouTube has a bunch of features that couple users to it. That coupling gives YouTube a partially closed market.

Please forgive me if I disregard all your academic arguments about economic philosophy that are based on one term I used ("free market") because that was the most concise term I could think of using the english language. There is no dogmatic and irrational belief in lassaiz faire at work here.

I'm not sure what features YouTube has that couple users to it, because I've never had a YouTube account, yet I can go to YouTube and watch absolutely anything (with the exception of a few vexing restrictions when using a mobile device). I'm not forced to use YouTube for anything, and plenty of videos I watch are provided by services other than YouTube. Lots of stuff is on YouTube, but I don't feel particularly coupled to it. In fact, I'd classify YouTube as the most uncoupled service on the internet because I am not forced to be a YouTube user in any way, yet I can watch any YouTube video I wish on just about any device I own.

More importantly, I can choose to NOT watch YouTube videos, and there is plenty of interesting information out there that does not use YouTube.

I'm not seeing the closed market you are describing, at least with respect to YouTube. I DO see a closed market with other services that require me to use that service exclusively to see something, but YouTube has been pretty egalitarian in my experience.

So what is your point exactly, and what service do you use that is more free than YouTube?

Not YouTube's problem, is it? Viewers find videos like they find anything else, by looking for them in the places where the videos are. My grocery store doesn't tell me where I can find related groceries not in the store. I go to several stores in the area and learn what each has that distinguishes them from the other. I go to the store that has the best produce/meat/seafood/organic/whatever when I want that thing. I don't consider Stop-n-Shop evil because I have to shop at other places depending on w

Viewers find videos like they find anything else, by looking for them in the places where the videos are.

The problem is that YouTube has done a good job of convincing users that the only "place[] where the videos are" is YouTube. How should one go about making people aware of a video not available on YouTube?

I may be somewhat intelligent, but I'm biased so not the best judge. Thanks for noticing though. My family, friends and community members might assert otherwise, but I try my best. My greatest triumph was my teenaged daughter who recently declared that "You're pretty smart, dad". If you have or have had teenaged children, you'll know that such an unsolicited statement is as rare as winning the lottery and shockingly gratifying. And fleeting because you're destined to be a clueless dumbass a few minutes

It's not. Nor to Facebook. Or even, to a much lesser extent, Slashdot. Many, maybe most, major network services have integrated aspects that create a barrier to competition which is not directly related to the quality of their core service.

It's not even necessarily an entirely bad thing in and of itself. Like monopolies, the problem is not the market situation itself, but the potential for abuse that comes with it. It is that potential that YouTube is attempting to exploit by

This doesn't seem like something Google would do. I'm also curious about this supposed new Google subscription streaming music service. Why would Google launch a new service to compete with their existing Google Music All Access service?

Let me ask you a question:you can sell a product for a dollar, 40% off which gets eaten up by middle men.ORyou can sell it for 70 cents, directly to your customers; which makes more money for you?What are the middle men going to try to do to keep 'their' 40% Maybe put a bad spin on it and claim the musician are worse off? maybe lie to the musician to generate outrage?

You letting someone feed right into your narrative and you keep lapping it up.

This is BETTER for the musician because there are less, to no, middlemen between the musician and the money.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But shouldn't the musicians be able to decide whether they want to be part of it or not, without being threatened with delisting if they don't want to participate in the new service?

This is typical 1000-pound gorilla bullying tactics, just like they impose on every website on the Internet. If you don't play by Google's rules, you won't be seen on Google searches. It works because they're the 1000-pound search gorilla of the Internet.

Google strong-arming musicians like the worst of the music industry? I dunno, sounds pretty evil to me.

Yes, how dare Google dictate its own business terms! How dare they tell those making money off of their 100% completely free service (without even ads if they so chose not to have them) that the free ride won't last forever. Evil! Evil I say! Nay, Google... NAY!

Google should have no say over how they choose to do business. Instead, Google should be nationalized and operated by an independent board of poets, and every decision voted on by their users to make everyone happy. Their servers will then be conv

Thing is, consumers like portals, at least in numbers significant enough that if you are hosted on a site that has a large user base you will get more attention then having your own custom site that people have to search for.

For all of its problems, Youtube provides a consistent interface, relatively stable performance, and a linking system that encourages people to explore videos and artists that they are not already aware of or are aware of and seeing the 'suggestion' spurns interest in rewatching something.

That 70% doesn't go to the artists though. According to the page you linked:

Once Spotify has paid a rights owner the total royalties due for their accumulated streams, that label or publisher pays each artist according to that artistâ(TM)s contractual royalty rates. This will likely also take into account other factors including recoupment status, which is one reason that different artists in different deals might ultimately receive different royalties from their respective labels and publishers.

Without an agreed upon definition of "evil", their slogan was basically meaningless.

And actually, it should have been annoying to everyone who holds a worldview whose definition of evil was met by Google's actions. Because then Google was basically saying, "Evil is not what your {religion | moral philosophy | etc. } defines it as." Basically, it's either (a) Google giving a big middle finger everyone holding contrary definitions of evil, or (b) to everyone who assumed Google was sincere in its "Do no evil

So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.

People who think that are narrow-minded. The moment you start trying to define 'evil' you invariably miss out things that you would want to discourage. A company that says "do no evil", and accounts for that when hiring, should be able to answer the question "Is threatening to de-list musicians from YouTube if they don't accept our streaming terms a little evil" without needing a 20 point list of 'what evil means'. Like any big

I think you're missing the point. They can probably give an answer, but regardless of whether it's yes or no, that will be contrary to someone groups' definition of evil.

Which means Google is in denial that they must either (a) admit that some world views are wrong, or (b) limit their actions to those which are considered non-evil by every worldview, an intersection which is probably the empty set.

The fact that they're not willing to admit that, in my view, makes their "Do no evil" claim at the very least

I've played in garage and bar bands and my brother plays in a bar band that's making progress they have a sponsor but they are wanting to get signed to one these indie labels because some of the problems they are facing is how to distribute/promote their music, manage their online presence, and contract gigs

{they have actually played gigs that they didn't know how much they were getting paid, what time sound check was, or if they were going to be able to sell their merchandise, because some of the members h

Youtube has had content recognition for ages. Try to upload a commercial song and you'll soon be slapped with either ads (with the proceeds going to the copyright holder) or blocked depending what options the copyright holder has set.

Anonymous Coward asked for a free software web application that replicates YouTube, perhaps something like GNU MediaGoblin [mediagoblin.org]. Are you looking for something that runs even on shared web hosting, or is something that requires a VPS acceptable? I imagine that a lot of web hosts don't want a bunch of CPU-heavy FFmpeg transcoding jobs to run on entry-level hosting. You probably won't be able to reach iPhone and iPad users with only free software because these devices can't play any unpatented video formats. And ev